December 19, 2010

Here's the CNN home page a 11:46 p.m. EST, on the day that Congress repealed the odious old Clinton-era legislation:

So, a woman has a baby. That's the main thing. Secondarily, there's North Korea. And "Dont miss" the fact that C.S. Lewis is still popular, there's a lot of Christmas trash, and geeks are "cooler than nerds." In the fine print, the DADT repeal is listed under "Latest news," after a "moderate" earthquake in Indonesia and before the fact that it's been cold in Europe.

Saw that not sure what the hell was going on. The stupid vbac article is a few days old. It was actually very irresponsible as that was her fourt child nd the prior three were ceasarean. Three wrongs don't make a right.

Now that the repeal of DADT has been accomplished, it's of no interest to Liberals. They got what they wanted out of it (a weakening of the military and a chance to act holier-than-thou on behalf of a precious protected class) and now they'll jusy move on to their next little social experiment.

Jason wrote: Makes me think of a scene from Talk to Her where the man literally climbs into a woman's vagina and is crushed to death when she orgasms. Granted, the vagina wasn't huge, he was just very small.

How the Left still has any credibility is beyond me.The way they dealt with the issue of AGW alone could fill a lifetime of blogging.Only a true psychopath would spend decades lying to their own friends, families and neighbors about the very nature of the Earth. The fact that some people still listen to their garbage after their exposure as international thieves and anti-science/education scumbags is astounding.And they did it all by ginning up fear and resentment among the ignorant. Fear of the weather, fear of "big oil", fear of virtually everything that doesn't hew precisely to Leftist-approved thinking.

So can anyone tell me what will become the next big important gay issue that will be a high priority even thought the country is in two wars, has 10% unemployment, is broke and has many insolvent states and cities not to mention a porous border?

Late last year when my Marine son asked my opinion of whether he should stay in and make Captain or get out, one of the things I said was that with the current crowd in Washington I wouldn't want to be in again while they are there. This is an example of what I meant. I believe the Marines have a pretty good idea of who they want in the Corps and why. Politicians don't...and shouldn't pretend they do.

Professor, the nooks and crannies that I was referring to was the texture of society. The gay agenda is being pushed into any available pocket of society (the killing machine we call the military will NOT be enhanced because of this) so that eventually it kind of gets accepted by osmosis rather than by popular opinion.

Rather telling that you would foist YOUR imagery on me when this is plainly not the case.

Just look to Canada and England for the likely follow-up laws about Those Who Must Not Be Offended.

That's funny because a good friend of mine, who is of English stock, was just telling me he never lets anyone know where he's from anymore, he's so embarrassed about their wimpy politically correct outlook.

The whole "huge vagina" thing brings to mind the old David Allan Coe song about "Little Suzie Shallow Throat," part of his infamous X-rated albums from the 1970s. You can find the song on YouTube, but I'm not putting a link here.

I had a roommate in the Army back in the early '80s named Cowboy who listened to both kinds of music (Country AND Western) and had the X-rated albums on a bootleg tape. Funny stuff, but way beyond un-PC. I later found a CD that had all of the songs except the one about "F*ck Anita Bryant." And the funny thing is, that one probably would be just as appropriate to this thread!

I have a gay friend who is partnered. They have a child who is the spawn of my friend and a surrogate. They are perfectly nice and I am sure that if things don't work out between my buddy and his partner that the partner will have an equal chance of custody of "their" little boy. Because this is all very straight forward.

I an an Army veteran (E-5) from the sixties, when the Army was mostly drafted. In that era for many young men a couple of years of military service was preferable to "coming out" n order to avoid it.

There were several gay men in my company. They did their jobs just like anyone else. One of only two barracks fights I ever got into was when I took exception to an a$$hole harassing a gay soldier who was not a physical match for his assailant.

The Army seems to have survived, and unit morale did not suffer once the a$$hole was put into his place. DADT is about not recognizing the reality that the military has always included gay soldiers. Before the repeal, Congress might as well have been clinging to the notion that the earth s flat until voted otherwise.

So gays who have been serving all along in the military can come out. Big deal. They might be surprised by how many people they think they have fooled who aren't and really don't care anyway. Please forgive us if we are not anxiously counting down to the first on-base gay pride parade, the inevitable harassment complaints, lawsuits, discrimination charges, and a new set of annual mandatory training sessions on how we are all ignorant bastards and need to appreciate the wonderful diversity and awesome contributions of our fellow troops who identify by their sexuality. Oh goody. All this "progress" is getting me in touch with my inner anabaptist.

For what it's worth, Canada has had no restrictions on gays serving for years and there are virtually no openly gay men serving in the combat arms. I can't speak to the REMFs,and it's true that the lesbians basically run the military police, but otherwise not a lot of gay going on. There was just a sort of informal don't tell, don't get boot-f*cked - if you though a guy might by gay, the biggest favor you could do him was to put it entirely out of your mind so you couldn't accidentally say something.

Of course, we pretty much just assumed that all the "men" in the Navy were gay, but that's just a given.

The military doesn;t work like that. It is a system. Who serves next to you, below you, above you - will affect the readiness of both you and ability to do missions tasked. A team thing.Your "best soldiers" amount to effective nothings in a dysfunctional team environment.

It needs strong, but replacable links because shit happens and people attrit.In most cases, gays will work OK. But in others - like females unfit for certain duty, ADA candidates, some smoker left gasping at Bagrahm AFB while his buds do high altitude missions - certain gays may be a detriment.A chain is only strong as it's weakest link. A cliche` perhaps, but a standing USMC and Air Force motto. The problem will be in the weeding out side...how do you get rid of a gay Howdy Doody weak link like Bradley Manning or an overly aggressive bulldyke Staff SGT in charge of female soldier quarters without "Homophobia!!" accusations flying??

DADT repeal is going to have a significant snap back on the Democrats because it is a topic that won't go away and is linked to gay hijinks. There are months of ROTC shenanigans ahead at elite universities attempting to keep the military out with new more transparently ridiculous demands but still linked to homosexuals, then comes the "if we can fight and die for our country why can't we marry?" theme. The professional homosexual claque will run riot until the nation is so f-ing sick of them that their current gains, given with qualms, will be rolled back with a vengeance and at the expense of the Democrats. It's the gift that keeps on giving.

Umm.. it's not a big deal today because they are ALWAYS LEANING FORWARD. Being a Progressive means always fighting for the next hill.

For the Left, winning a victory against Clintonian policy is great but what's next?

I would suspect they'll now take their fight for gay marriage into the Chaplain Corps. They'll try to blow that up. 'Cause that's what they do. Actually, that will also give all of the elitist universities cover as well. They can still refuse to allow ROTC onto campus because Reverend Bob refuses to marry Pvt. Lance and Pvt. Blake.

Why is DADT such minor news? Because it's MINOR NEWS. The only thing that gays gain is that they can now march in Gay Pride parades and not worry.

When I was in the Navy, I was the Mission Commander and navigator for my P-3 Orion aircrew. My pilot and Aircraft Commander was, I was fairly sure, homosexual. This was in the mid-80's. A small to average sized man, lived in San Franciso, soft-spoken. He said he was married, but never brought anyone to squadron parties. He was a tactical genius, the best pilot I ever flew with. Did I _care_ who he slept with? Not in the slightest.

I think the only people who are so over-the-moon excited about DADT are the "Queer Nation" crowd, most of whom would never join the military anyway.

How about we draft all those liberals who supported open homosexuality in the armed forces.

Then we distribute them into infantry units and put them in Afghanistan.

THEN we put them in some of the dangerous areas there with openly homosexual men on LP/OP at night.

I wonder if any of them will get a good nights sleep wondering if the homosexuals are paying more attention to their duties than to each other.

Regards,

Chuck(le)P.S. While attending IOAC, I came across a report about the Yugoslavian partisans during WWII. Seems that the co-ed units had 'issues' with LP/OPs wherein the occupants of those important outposts were paying more attention to each other than to their duties of keeping their unit from being attacked. The Nazis got in and whacked some of the units pretty hard.

Tito's answer was to require summary execution of anyone having sexual relations in the combat zone. They'd be taken out and shot in front of the rest of the company by their company commanders.

I'm wondering how this experiment in 'social engineering' is going to fare. Will it be better or worse than what Tito's troops experienced?

Considering that homosexuals are apparently more promiscuous than heterosexuals......

Oh, and more thing. Here are some more predictions (in addition to the continuing ban on ROTC):

1) The Left will get the Chaplain Corps dismantled because one of more CHRISTIAN chaplain refuses to marry two gay soldiers. They won't dare touch a Muslim Chaplain. No fucking way.2) Watch and wait for the sexual scandal that occurs when a commander is found demanding sexual favors from gay subordinates (see: Eric Massa).3) Watch and wait for the scandal that occurs when soldiers or sailors are promoted/rewarded BECAUSE they slept with their commanding officer. That will be awesome.

"Field duty is boring. In combat it is extremely stressful.Sex is a GREAT way to relieve either and/or both of those. But in the meantime, peoples' lives are at stake."

The only time I've been desperate for sex OR alcohol was immediately after basic training in tech school. It's the stress level right between "too stressful to menstruate" and not. One of my friends who was old enough to drink (I was old enough, too, but didn't. The desperate urge to get drunk scared the crap out of my never-been-drunk-in-my-life self.) and go to the clubs on-base had herself a *very* nice time. I have no idea where she actually went to have sex, but she smiled a whole lot. Several people ended up married out of tech school. It was so much of a phenomenon that we were warned against it. Being female in that situation was a truly... unique... experience in supply and demand.

I seem to recall DADT was Congress' then solution to stopping the Courts martial of gay soldier, sailor, and Marines that were coming out once then President Clinton said they'd allow them to serve openly. Except, WHOOPS, that pesky Uniform Code of Military Justice was in the way. Unless I missed something, the UCMJ has not been modified to eliminate homosexuality as a court martial offense. If so, how does this 'repeal' help anyone who is gay serving in uniform?

Unless I missed something, the UCMJ has not been modified to eliminate homosexuality as a court martial offense.

The UCMJ does not prohibit homosexuality, it prohibits sodomy. Sodomy includes any oral or anal sex. If the military is not checking to see if your wife goes down on you, they can hardly watch what your male partner does.

Chris said...Unless I missed something, the UCMJ has not been modified to eliminate homosexuality as a court martial offense. If so, how does this 'repeal' help anyone who is gay serving in uniform?

Good question, Chris. Does the repeal statute add anything or is everything now in place just as it was when Clinton signed DADT? Guess I'll have to read the statute. (I hope it's not 2000 pages long.)

Okay, I just read the statute. It's only 4 pages, thank god. No special additions as far as I can tell. Doesn't even go into effect immediately. My nonprofessional advice to those following in Synova's basic training tech school footsteps: Avoid asking, avoid telling, and above all -- behave yourself!

Now that DADT is over except for the lawyering as we work out the details, can we now switch to the question of WHEN are young women who turn 18 going to start being required to register for the draft?

"And this woman is standing up to the medical profession, the legal profession, and smug people who want to tell her how to give birth. Good for her."

Most obstetricians will allow a woman who has had a c section to try vaginal birth the next time. After three c-sections she is playing Russian roulette with a ruptured uterus with death of the baby and serious risk of death for herself.

However, it's a free country.

Based on my experience in the 1950s and 60s when I was in the military, I would guess the percentage of gays is higher than that in the general population. They were left alone for the most part and I doubt this repeal will be of much benefit to them.

King Richard, the Lion-Hearted, was a homosexual. Which, is only important to know because the King of France was also his one time lover. They were so pissed at each other, as only ex-lovers can be, that they allowed their personal animosity to interfere with their managing the 5th Crusade. The Europeans lost.

What they used to say in the military was "If the (name your service) wanted you to have wife, you have been issued one." Soldiers in the field have very important work to do, and they don't need distractions.

Gee, cj, you trying to make a point here, like there are some markers to indicate what sort of Republicans these are? Do they think people aren't noticing? Or do they believe they are invincible? Next: when do those Senators have their next primary?

so..'nobody cares' except for the hysterical folks who seem to 'care' a whole heck of a lot. this notion that by discontinuing the policy of ruining peoples lives and careers for no good reason means that all hell will break loose and barracks will become boa-wearing, high-kicking orgies of gay sex betrays a shocking bias based on a complete mis-understanding of who gay people are. being gay does not mean that one forfeits their masculinity. gay soldiers are just as 'macho' as straight ones..and everybody follows the same rules of conduct. there's some 60k gay servicemembers right this very moment and, thanks to this legislation, they will still be there tomorrow..and nothing will have changed except that they will no longer have to constantly look over their shoulders when they should be concentrating on their mission.

....all hell will break loose and barracks will become boa-wearing, high-kicking orgies of gay sex betrays a shocking bias based on a complete mis-understanding of who gay people are. -- el polacko

I guess el polacko has not spent very much time in barracks. Especially the co-ed ones. Let alone being a student of military history.

Well....

....we'll see.

But in the meantime, a LOT of salient points are being made in the comments of this thread. Especially the way the Maim-Stream Media is 'trumpeting' the vote. And again with Milwaukee's astute observation on how it took a lame-duck Congress to do this.

From what I was told, the young soldiers fuck like bunnies - at least a good portion of them. There's got to be some system, though, cause they are four to a CHU.

A (not apocryphal, I think) tale: A female enlisted had a prostitution service going on her base in Iraq - even down to a sign on her door that had a list of prices for diff. ranks - all the way up to Capt. or LTC as I recall.

As an army civilian, I spent some time at Corps and I remember sitting in the DIFAC in Baghdad and chatting with a LTC and a full-bird. The LTC (an older and kind of imposing guy) was clearly gay - he didn't say it, but made no attempt to appear straight. The bird (also an imposing 'old-school' sort of dude) didn't care at all - they were clearly pals from way back. It struck me in a kind of positive way.

So distractions are there for those that want them and not there for those that don't, or don't care.

A (not apocryphal, I think) tale: A female enlisted had a prostitution service going on her base in Iraq - even down to a sign on her door that had a list of prices for diff. ranks - all the way up to Capt. or LTC as I recall. -- Miriam123

I recall reports from associates of another such activity by a female member of a National Guard unit while on two week training cycle. Albeit she didn't rate cost by pay-grade.

There are other reports of malfeasance of similar forms. I think I mentioned one above.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell; The whole point is that what you did in PRIVATE was pretty much your own business. The gays that I knew (or suspected) in the Navy didn't make a big deal about it.

But the point of equal enforcement of the sexual harassment and misconduct is a good one. When I was in Diego Garcia, NCIS investigated a female sailor stationed on a tender, or repair ship or some such. (That was back when women could go to sea, but not on combat vessels.) NCIS was apparently concerned that she was dealing drugs; they found her with other sailors' paychecks endorsed over to her. Apparently this NCIS team was somewhat unimaginative as to WHICH drug she was "dealing". Seems she was servicing the sailors, as well as the ships!

I was more concerned, some years later, to learn that 15% of the female complement of an aircraft carrier had to be removed from the ship before deployment due to pregnancy, and that the rash of pregnancies continued throughout the ship's 8-month cruise. Losing that many trained sailors during a cruise is almost as detrimental to "morale and unit cohesion" as taking a missile strike.

In such situations, we have to rely on whole blood from soldiers in the isolated area for treating the wounded. Great way to transfer HIV, don't you think?

Yeah. Once you're detected as being HIV positive, they're supposed to discharge you as medically unfit for duty. However, they can't detected it the moment you become contagious. And, as I've pointed out, homosexuals tend to be much more 'promiscuous' than heterosexuals. Do you doubt this? Then get with the Battalel(?) group that did all that research back in the late-80s/early-90s. They have LOTS of data. And they published much of it in Planning Perspectives in '91-92. All kinds of data on heterosexual male sexual activity: frequency, # of partners, types of activity, etc., etc., etc.

However, they were VERY quiet about the homosexual male sexual activities.

You're a former military officer. Do any work with intelligence? What do you make of that?

That's just another arg about this.

Regards,

Chuck(le)[Military intelligence is not an oxymoron, except to morons themselves. -- CBPelto]

If the Senators were voting according to the wishes of their constituents, why did this need to wait until the lame-duck session? They could have passed this in January of 2009.

Congress was waiting for the Pentagon's reaction. The Pentagon finally committed to study the matter in January, 2010, with a due date of Dec 1. The Pentagon beat this deadline by one day. Once the Pentagon gave the thumbs up, Congress passed DADT some two weeks later, after the tax cut extension passed.

I am unconvinced. Congress could have ordered the report to be ready sooner, or ordered a less rigorous report, or just moved ahead without such a report. Since they are in the mood to tell the military what to do, delaying for that report just gave them cover to delay. Since the whole point of having a military is to be able to engage in combat, why did they focus on the responses from non-combat units and personnel, and ignore the overwhelming negative reaction from those who are actually doing the fighting?

Why did the Washington DC Archdiocese end their Catholic Foster Care program?

Money. That is, for the same reason Wisconsin upped its drinking age to 21.

Freedom of Religion does not mean that you can take money from the Government and spend it however you want. (Well, in a perfect world you can't, I know there are tons of examples where it does happen).

Congress had to defer to the military on this hypersensitive issue, especially at time of war. They couldn't bully or force the military on this issue -- the military is the one to implement it thus their buy-in is crucial.

Since the whole point of having a military is to be able to engage in combat, why did they focus on the responses from non-combat units and personnel, and ignore the overwhelming negative reaction from those who are actually doing the fighting?

First, how many of our 3,000,000 person military are in combat arms? I believe the responses were in proportion to their MOS. Second, I did not get the sense that combat arms types were overwhelmingly negative. Could you point to that reaction in the report?

Former Law Student:Here is the article:http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2010/12/what-dont-ask-dont-tell-report-really-says

The military has two sets: people in combat and people supporting people in combat. To be sure, the guys cooking in the mess tent, or working in the motor pool aren't pointing weapons at people who are shooting back, but they are supporting those who are. Deferring to the military seems to mean "waiting until we can browbeat enough of them to say what we want". Military brass know who is writing the checks. Which is as it should be. The Marines were not happy with repeal.

That being said, again, why is such important material being dealt with in a lame-duck session? Perhaps we need a law that anything passed during the lame duck session has a shelf life of 6 months, when the newly installed congress must approve. Congress set the deadline for that report, knowing it would come after the election.

That being said, again, why is such important material being dealt with in a lame-duck session? Perhaps we need a law that anything passed during the lame duck session has a shelf life of 6 months, when the newly installed congress must approve.

From your lips to God's ears. Then the abomination of the Commodity Futures Trading Modernization Act -- passed without debate on December 15, 2000 -- would have expired, and the mortgage-backed securities meltdown might never have occurred. Certainly more scrutiny could have fleshed out possible flaws.

In there is an 'episode' on Iwo Jima. Wherein Chesty Puller was running out of men to fight the suicidal Japanese with. He called back to the rear for reinforcements. He was told, "All we've got left are clerks and cooks." He said, "Send them up. Those that are alive in the morning will be 'Marines'."

However, when Service members in warfighting units who had served with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian were asked to assess their actual experiences, the distinctions in survey results between those in combat arms and the overall military are almost non-existent. For example, for those who have had the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, when asked to rate that unit’s “ability to work together,” 92% of the overall military said the answer was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”328 In response to that same question, the percentage is 89% for those in126Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.329These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not “fit” the image of a good warfighter—a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay Service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters. Anecdotally, we heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that henwas gay.”330The survey results also reveal that, within warfighting units, negative predictions about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative or very negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in a field environment or out at sea.”331 By contrast, in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage drops to 48%.332Our judgment is that the levels of reluctance of gays to “out themselves” described in the previous section, even if permitted by law, would be even higher in warfighting units.This, coupled with the low number of gay men estimated to be in the military (relative to their representation in civilian population),333 leads us to conclude that, if the law were repealed, the change in culture and environment in warfighting units will be minimal.For these reasons, we conclude that the risks of repeal within warfighting units of all Services, while somewhat higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with our recommendations for implementation.

....we should accept, at face value, a report approved by a bunch of political appointees, e.g., Gates and Mullen.

And NOT accept the reports of the promoted through the hard-earned ranks generals of the separate branches of service.

Yeah...THAT makes 'sense'.

Furthermore, as additional evidence of the 'cred' of this 'report', I offer how just last week the S[t]urgeon General—another political appointee—emphatically decreed that one whiff of second-hand smoke could cause lung cancer. No scientific evidence to back up the claim. But just 'trust her'. She's from the government and she's 'here to help'.

Almost a Lawyer, But Dropped Out, is hardly what any military professional would refer to as a reliable source of information.

This is why I don't get all of my news online. There is something for buying print newspapers because they have to put the important news above the fold, or they won't sell. Online sites have no reason they wouldn't do that.